Re: HTTP Layer rework and PUSH_PROMISE contents

On 28 June 2013 21:04, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Not necessary for protocol interoperability, but there are strong reasons
> why it ought to be done that way.  I agree that there are unpleasant results
> if the sequence isn't there -- I just question whether that makes it a
> protocol MUST rather than a best practice.

I agree with this.  I also don't think that it will be possible in
some cases to provide this guarantee.  In many cases it will be
certainly be infeasible.

Received on Saturday, 29 June 2013 20:20:10 UTC